Thread Options 
|
#278279 - 11/23/04 09:58 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
He has released a statement.....Says he was shot at first. Being the original 3 that approached him are now dead, no one may ever know what really happened. As we most of us are getting ready to spend Thanksgiving with our friends and families, hold a special place in your hearts for the families of all those involved in this tragedy. Here it is http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6551094/
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278281 - 11/23/04 11:23 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Power Poster
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,841
|
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278282 - 11/23/04 11:39 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,975
Alderaan
|
Quote:
Shot at by all 8 people and all 5 that he killed?
There are 6 dead now. One died last night.
_________________________
Duct tape is like the force: It has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278284 - 11/24/04 03:34 AM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
It doesn't say what you hope it says.
What I hope if says??????? This is a direct quote :
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
You are the one "hoping" that no one will notice what this says, but anyone can read this and determine for themseves.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278285 - 11/24/04 03:57 AM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
Quote:
you will never convince me that certain types of weapons do NOT belong in the hands of everyday citizens.
I won't try to convince you that certain types of weapons do NOT belong in the hands of everyday citizens. (I think you mean that you won't be convinced that certain types of weapons DO belong in the hands of everyday citizens.  )
But at any rate, I won't debate the policy. If you want to argue that states should prohibit ownership of particular weapons, or that a Constitutional amendment should be passed to allow the federal government to do the same, go for it. I have no objection.
We purportedly live under a constitutional republic. We are purportedly a nation of laws. No one, not the President, not Congress, is above the law. And no one can say that the federal government has the authority to infringe upon the right of citizens to bear arms under our Constitution as currently amended.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278286 - 11/24/04 04:35 AM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Once again, anon, the reply below applies to your quote: Quote:
The case you referenced had to do with an individual charged by federal agents with possession of a sawed-off shotgun. The Supreme Court was simply stating that an individual who is charged with the armed hold-up of a liquor store using a sawed-off shotgun can not later argue that he has second amendment protections. I think you're reading something else into the decision. It doesn't say what you hope it says. It was in no way a lessening of second amendment right-to-bear provisions; it was a correct assertion based on the specific case at hand.
I believe that we are in agreement, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I agree with the Court, as you do, that a convicted career-criminal felon who commits an armed hold-up with a sawed-off shotgun should not be able to hoodwink the Court by claiming that he has a second amendment right to bear an illegal, altered shotgun. Once again, I agree with the Court's ruling that this felon was not protected by the second amendment when he possessed a sawed-off shotgun, held up a liquor store, and killed the store proprietor. For a dangerous criminal to try to claim second amendment protection is an affront to all law abiding citizens who legally own arms, and the Court was correct in stating that the second amendment does not necessarily protect all individuals who wish to bear
arms -- particularly dangerous felons with sawed-off shotguns.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278287 - 11/24/04 02:45 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Quote:
Hunting is a sport. No one does it because they have to to feed themselves anymore. Good hunters are sportsman who believe in giving their prey a fighting chance. A true sportsman wouldn't use an automatic weapon because it ruins the sport of the hunt.
You can tout constitutional rights as loud as you want but you will never convince me that certain types of weapons do NOT belong in the hands of everyday citizens.
I have to disagree....I have know several fellow hunters who use the same rifle that was used in this tragedy. Do they need the semi-auto rifle, probably not....do they fire off 10 rounds on a single deer... absolutely not. I am curious if you are a hunter? If so I respect your opinion, just disagree with it. If you are not a hunter, then I not only disagree with your opinion, but give it little credence. A true sportsman isn't defined by the gun he/she uses, but by his/her respect and love of nature, morals, and enjoyment of family traditions.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278288 - 11/24/04 04:10 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,975
Alderaan
|
This story's getting more tragic by the moment. more on the hunter story
_________________________
Duct tape is like the force: It has a light side and a dark side and it holds the universe together.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278289 - 11/24/04 04:49 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 5,564
Clintonville, WI, USA
|
One year I went to my hunting stand, climbed in, and in about 30 seconds, a hunter I did not know got up out of the bushes near me. He said "Sorry" and walked off. Near as I can tell, he was in the hunting party from the neighbors, and was not sure where our property lines were. No harm, no foul, but I am glad he made himself seen, so I did not accidently shoot him if a deer ran by! 
_________________________
Member of the National Sarcasm Society - like we need your support!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278293 - 11/24/04 06:38 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
Power Poster
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 8,990
Cincinnati, OH
|
Quote:
Quote:
you will never convince me that certain types of weapons do NOT belong in the hands of everyday citizens.
I won't try to convince you that certain types of weapons do NOT belong in the hands of everyday citizens. (I think you mean that you won't be convinced that certain types of weapons DO belong in the hands of everyday citizens. )
But at any rate, I won't debate the policy. If you want to argue that states should prohibit ownership of particular weapons, or that a Constitutional amendment should be passed to allow the federal government to do the same, go for it. I have no objection.
We purportedly live under a constitutional republic. We are purportedly a nation of laws. No one, not the President, not Congress, is above the law. And no one can say that the federal government has the authority to infringe upon the right of citizens to bear arms under our Constitution as currently amended.
Then explain why it says that this right it to be REGULATED!
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278294 - 11/24/04 07:39 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
10K Club
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 12,846
|
It doesn't say the right to bear arms is to be regulated. It says the nation needs a well-regulated (i.e., well-trained) militia.
With regards to the right, the only thing the amendment says is that it shall not be infringed.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278295 - 11/24/04 07:46 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
100 Club
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 146
Earth
|
Quote:
Beagles, the SKS 7.62 semiautomatic rifle is a common weapon used by hunters, thanks to the NRA!
Be glad he wasn't using cop killer bullets!
Mikey, your youth, indoctrination by liberal college professors, and political correctness is showing..
The SKS semi-automatic rifle is not a new weapon, nor is it considered an assault weapon. It's been around for almost 50 years. Yep 50. count em. Many states permit hunting with autoloading rifles (not automatic rifles as incorrectly reported by the main stream media)and the SKS is at the bottom of the ladder when it comes to quality and desirability, but because the Communist block countries made these by the billions, they are dirt cheap.
You can walk in Wally world and buy a far superior semi-auto rifle (or any other kind) thanks to the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, and the blood of patriots that gave it all to preserve what we have.... NOT the NRA.
The NRA does nothing more that keep it's membership informed of the socialists in our country, weaseling to userp or re-interpret these documents to fit their agenda.
Also, do you even know what a cop killer bullet is?? Please give us your definition. I'll bet you can't without doing a google search to find it.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278297 - 11/24/04 07:56 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
100 Club
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 146
Earth
|
Quote:
I agree with the NRA on a lot of things, but lets face it, when they argue you need automatic weapons and armor piercing bullets to hunt, they have gone off the deep end!
Sorry Mikey, but I really think you are an ***** and way out of your element on this subject. your ignorance of the subject matter shines through like sunshine in the tropics.
Armor piercing bullets are not used, or even desirable for hunting. Where did you ever get that idea?? College?? If the 5 individuals were shot with armor piercing or even military style full metal jacketed bullets, more of them nay have survived. Hunting bullets are far more destructive than FMJ's.
Do you know the differene between an automatic weapon and autoloader or semi-automatic? It is clear that you do not.
Get a life, or get educated before you jump into conversations where you haven't got a clue..
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278299 - 11/24/04 08:03 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
100 Club
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 146
Earth
|
Quote:
What I find interesting is the idea that the constitution allows anyone to have any arms they want. It's just not there. What is there is the creation of a militia and the allowance for that militia to keep and bear arms.
"A well REGULATED Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
First off, the militia is to be regulated, in other words not everyone can have any weapon. The right of the people shall not be infringed. The people does not mean anyone and everyone, it means the militia of the state shall not be infringed.
Thanks to the NRA, people expect anyone should be allowed to own rocket launchers to protect their home.
Still swimming in deep water Mikey?
First, as much as you would like to interpret the constitution to fit your socialist agenda, there have already been enough cases that define the militia as the people, not the national guard.
Go talk to a company attorney (if you know one) He can explain to you that the law means what the words meant at the time the law was written. In other words, as language changes, and the meaning of words change, that does not change the meaning of the law, and there have been a number of cases supporting that as well.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278300 - 11/24/04 08:07 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
100 Club
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 146
Earth
|
Quote:
Thanks to the NRA, people expect anyone should be allowed to own rocket launchers to protect their home.
I missed this one... Once again Mikey, your wrong. YOU ALREAD CAN OWN ONE IF YOU WANT ONE.
Don't believe me? Go visit the BATF website, Machine guns and destructive devices (like rocket launchers) MAY be owned by private citizens with the proper licensing..
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
#278303 - 11/24/04 08:17 PM
Re: Hunter kills 5
|
100 Club
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 146
Earth
|
Quote:
Frank,
Actually this has nothing to do with indoctrination by college professors or youth, it has to do with the NRA standing against banning assault rifles and promoting the acceptance of firearms that are not detected by metal detectors such as plastic molded weapons, etc. As for a cop killer bullet, when I refer to a cop killer bullet I am talking about any teflon coated or otherwise armor piercing ammunition that has absolutely no use outside of killing people wearing body armor.
Mikey, Clearly you have learned what you are parroting from cop TV shows, and left wing media propaganda. Teflon bullets have NEVER been available commercially. Additionally, they are only effective when fired from handguns. Virtually any bullet fired from a rifle will defeat virtually ALL body armor. It doesn't have to be FMJ or teflon coated. Physics alone are all that is necessary.
|
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Thread
Index